cancer needs acid in body. dont give it food and its cells will fall apart!

]]>By: Jake_Witmerhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-228698
Jake_WitmerSat, 19 Oct 2013 18:15:19 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-228698I do have more than an academic interest in a cure for cancer. Two of my grandparents died from it. Still worse, although I don't currently have cancer (as far as I know), it kills millions of innocent people per year. Still worse, the entire world of consumers are all FORCIBLY denied access to all natural cures or treatments for cancer.
According to the World Health Organization:
Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide, accounting for 7.6 million deaths (around 13% of all deaths) in 2008 (1).
Anyone who thinks the FDA should be allowed to prevent adults from buying whatever cancer treatment they wish, with those numbers, is a supporter of MURDER, and deserves to be treated as such.I do have more than an academic interest in a cure for cancer. Two of my grandparents died from it. Still worse, although I don’t currently have cancer (as far as I know), it kills millions of innocent people per year. Still worse, the entire world of consumers are all FORCIBLY denied access to all natural cures or treatments for cancer.

According to the World Health Organization:
Cancer is a leading cause of death worldwide, accounting for 7.6 million deaths (around 13% of all deaths) in 2008 (1).

Anyone who thinks the FDA should be allowed to prevent adults from buying whatever cancer treatment they wish, with those numbers, is a supporter of MURDER, and deserves to be treated as such.

]]>By: Davidhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-228591
DavidSat, 19 Oct 2013 12:18:04 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-228591I think that most of you are missing the point here. Cancer is killing every day and what is being done about it? My dad is dying right now. Just last week he was walking and now a shriveled up 68 year old man that is completely helpless. He has no chance for recovery. Why can't these type of cases be used like mice for those company's that feel they are at a breaking point of discovery? What does he have to loose at this point? The doctors say nothing we can do except sit around and watch him suffer till he dies.
I say if that is the case then send me your drugs of hope.
Yes the FDA has its pros I don't want to take something off the shelf if it is not tested to no end. But if I'm dying then let me try anything that may lead to future discovery.I think that most of you are missing the point here. Cancer is killing every day and what is being done about it? My dad is dying right now. Just last week he was walking and now a shriveled up 68 year old man that is completely helpless. He has no chance for recovery. Why can’t these type of cases be used like mice for those company’s that feel they are at a breaking point of discovery? What does he have to loose at this point? The doctors say nothing we can do except sit around and watch him suffer till he dies.
I say if that is the case then send me your drugs of hope.
Yes the FDA has its pros I don’t want to take something off the shelf if it is not tested to no end. But if I’m dying then let me try anything that may lead to future discovery.
]]>By: Jake_Witmerhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-174272
Jake_WitmerTue, 16 Jul 2013 19:57:56 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-174272Don't be servile. It's better to be a human being.Don’t be servile. It’s better to be a human being.
]]>By: Jake_Witmerhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-174269
Jake_WitmerTue, 16 Jul 2013 19:54:59 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-174269Chrispium, you've made a lot of errors in your unwittingly self-destructive analysis. Let me help you out with some remedial basic logic and remedial English.
[Madness to opt out. Opt out to what?]
Do you mean, "Opt out _of_ what?" In this example, I'd be opting out of coercive prohibitions, and opting out "to" a free market.
[ The liberchalatans dreammarket? Without government there is anarchy and you will be ruled by the strong warlord/sociopath.]
You're confusing civilization with charlatanism. Most of the things you do on a daily basis are anarchic (without government) if you're a decent person. Legitimate government exists solely to prevent force and fraud.
[If you dislike government so much then go live in Somalia.]
Somalia never had a culture of limited government, or jury trials. Moreover, they are increasingly religiously-damaged (Islam). No thanks. I prefer to restore America to individual freedom, rather than run away from the problems people like yourself have created here.
[ That’s what a country without effective government looks like.]
Derp derp.
I guess you agree with Hamilton, then, the Founding Father who wanted the most federal government? Right? Great! ...Because Hamilton favored the absolute right of the jury to nullify bad laws, and to judge the law. This was his argument when he defended Croswell against the charge of seditious libel. (People Against Croswell, 1805)
Statistically, if 10% of the population disagree with a law, a prosecutor has a 28% chance of conviction. No prosecutor will go to court with those odds. This makes almost all laws unenforceable, when proper due process is followed. Too bad it's not.
Oh, well then, I guess you agree with me, but you're not smart enough or educated-enough to comprehend that fact. As usual from clueless socialists who know nothing about history, philosophy, or economics.Chrispium, you’ve made a lot of errors in your unwittingly self-destructive analysis. Let me help you out with some remedial basic logic and remedial English.

[Madness to opt out. Opt out to what?]
Do you mean, “Opt out _of_ what?” In this example, I’d be opting out of coercive prohibitions, and opting out “to” a free market.

[ The liberchalatans dreammarket? Without government there is anarchy and you will be ruled by the strong warlord/sociopath.]
You’re confusing civilization with charlatanism. Most of the things you do on a daily basis are anarchic (without government) if you’re a decent person. Legitimate government exists solely to prevent force and fraud.

[If you dislike government so much then go live in Somalia.]
Somalia never had a culture of limited government, or jury trials. Moreover, they are increasingly religiously-damaged (Islam). No thanks. I prefer to restore America to individual freedom, rather than run away from the problems people like yourself have created here.

[ That’s what a country without effective government looks like.]
Derp derp.

I guess you agree with Hamilton, then, the Founding Father who wanted the most federal government? Right? Great! …Because Hamilton favored the absolute right of the jury to nullify bad laws, and to judge the law. This was his argument when he defended Croswell against the charge of seditious libel. (People Against Croswell, 1805)

Statistically, if 10% of the population disagree with a law, a prosecutor has a 28% chance of conviction. No prosecutor will go to court with those odds. This makes almost all laws unenforceable, when proper due process is followed. Too bad it’s not.

Oh, well then, I guess you agree with me, but you’re not smart enough or educated-enough to comprehend that fact. As usual from clueless socialists who know nothing about history, philosophy, or economics.

]]>By: Jake_Witmerhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-174264
Jake_WitmerTue, 16 Jul 2013 19:44:57 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-174264Tom:
You should think this through a bit more. By taking the side of people who use violence to deny innocent people access to treatments that they desire, you are eliminating the immense power of the market to ferret out new cures, and test them with millions of self-informed judgments in the form of pricing. Human freedom actually does work.
Moreover: chemotherapy, surgery, etc. has a terrible track record. It does not work for many. Moreover, to claim that it's acceptable to deny a patient and a doctor their first choice in treatment is sadistic and antithetical to the ideas of a free society.
Also, it produces horribly inferior results, and dramatically slows technological advancement. I have no idea why you think it's optimal. Maybe you just don't understand anything about philosophy, history, or economics, because you brainwashed by 22 years of tax-financed schooling, and taught by perversely incentivized professors who taught you to view coercive government as a solution to all problems.
Think it through a bit more, Tom. No, wait, think it through a lot more, until you get it through your thick skull: neither you, nor the FDA has the right to prohibit anyone from trying any treatment. If you think you do, then I hope you find out what it feels like to know a treatment that is only offered in Portugal would save you, but it hasn't been approved yet, so you need to die a pointless, painful, early death.
If you do not learn to be consistently moral, I hope you find out the price of the immorality you advocate. ...Because you're too cowardly to knock down a doctor's door, and put police tape across it. ...But that's precisely what the FDA stormtroopers do.
Just ask Rodger Sless.
http://gos.sbc.edu/l/lord.html
http://nowscape.com/fija/_ldessa.htm
Or stevita company:
http://www.stevia.net/bookburning.htm
Or maybe if those two prior sources aren't "Singularity-oriented" enough, this link from Stephen Badylak will get through your apathy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC1MivfpT9oTom:
You should think this through a bit more. By taking the side of people who use violence to deny innocent people access to treatments that they desire, you are eliminating the immense power of the market to ferret out new cures, and test them with millions of self-informed judgments in the form of pricing. Human freedom actually does work.

Moreover: chemotherapy, surgery, etc. has a terrible track record. It does not work for many. Moreover, to claim that it’s acceptable to deny a patient and a doctor their first choice in treatment is sadistic and antithetical to the ideas of a free society.

Also, it produces horribly inferior results, and dramatically slows technological advancement. I have no idea why you think it’s optimal. Maybe you just don’t understand anything about philosophy, history, or economics, because you brainwashed by 22 years of tax-financed schooling, and taught by perversely incentivized professors who taught you to view coercive government as a solution to all problems.

Think it through a bit more, Tom. No, wait, think it through a lot more, until you get it through your thick skull: neither you, nor the FDA has the right to prohibit anyone from trying any treatment. If you think you do, then I hope you find out what it feels like to know a treatment that is only offered in Portugal would save you, but it hasn’t been approved yet, so you need to die a pointless, painful, early death.

If you do not learn to be consistently moral, I hope you find out the price of the immorality you advocate. …Because you’re too cowardly to knock down a doctor’s door, and put police tape across it. …But that’s precisely what the FDA stormtroopers do.

]]>By: Jake_Witmerhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-174257
Jake_WitmerTue, 16 Jul 2013 19:28:38 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-174257[Dear Editor, can we please be spared the libertarian nonsense representing your personal views in these forums?]
Ah, you found out the editor was a libertarian, and have decided to try to shame her into shutting down the side of the debate that she likely sympathizes with. A very noble debate tactic!
[ It is not at all on point.]
It's precisely on point, you weasel.
[ Yes, the FDA is a mess,]
You can stop there. Why is the FDA a mess? I thought we all needed to be "regulated" (prevented from buying the drugs and treatments we deem necessary to save our own lives). Oh, wait, the FDA's advice is so good, it has to be enforced at the barrel of a gun. And all the people who die before a treatment is "approved" who would have been saved by it? They're just expendable lives to you, the worshippers of slavery and false authority.
[ but proposing that consumer choice should be paramount ignores the reality that consumers have no capacity for comparing experimental drug regimens like they do for choosing among new cars or clothing.]
Yeah, because there's no such thing as google. ...Pure idiocy. The internet allows for infinitely better comparison of medical options than has ever existed at any prior time in history. Without the FDA millions of private standards operations would explode, offering even more information than is now offered, because they wouldn't be shackled with the threat of violence for contradicting FDA misinformation.
[ And the potential negative outcomes – death, dysfunction – are far more severe than buying unfashionable clothing.]
That's why we need death and dysfunction that's FDA-approved. Like the bogus and anti-biology "Food Pyramid" taught in the government youth propaganda camps that has caused so much obesity and early death. ...Which Kurzweil rightly skewers in "Fantastic Voyage."
[ I have no problem with any person choosing to ingest any substance.]
Oh, great, then you support the abolition of the FDA. Glad we agree. Unless your statements are 100% self-contradictory.
[ It’s your life.]
Not according to the FDA.
[ But allowing a company to market and profit from a health-affecting product requires regulation.]
Wait, I thought you just said it was my life, and I was free to ingest what I decided was best for me. Now you're directly contradicting yourself. Or did you think regulations weren't enforced with firearms?
You worship force, and you hate individual choice. Just admit it, and stop hiding behind nicer-sounding suitcase words like "regulation." What do you think happens when you don't obey the regulations? Do you think they just shake their heads and say "We sure do wish they'd listen to us!" No. THEY RAID YOU, WITH GUNS DRAWN.
http://youtu.be/nBiJB8YuDBQ?t=17m4s
...Just ask Roger Sless.
[ The FDA is a mess, but a market-regulated free-for-all would be an utter nightmare.]
No, your brain is a mess. A mess of self-contradicting pro-fascist blather. How about this, if you think freedom is a nightmare, why don't you get yourself locked up in the prison you desire. ...Just leave me out of it. Oh, that's not what you want when you're voting for the FDA? You want to compel these limits on my freedom, and what I can buy? How about if you go to hell, full of hot lead.
[ People have incredible motive to delude themselves when it comes to such products. And there are plenty of ruthless businesspeople willing to shuck snake oil to the credulous.]
Snake oil is healthier than subservience to fascism, you socialist worker bee.
[ ‘Consulting independent research labs’? Drug development is controlled largely by giant corporations.]
...whose enforcement arm is the FDA. Without the FDA we'd all be free to tell them to take a hike, and our insurance would be able to pay for natural alternatives and regenerative medicine that the slaves of the FDA currently are DISALLOWED BY COMPULSION. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that you refuse to admit that the FDA is compulsory, and that they use violence to enforce their edicts.
You are an authoritarian, which is opposite to any sort of individualism that could be called remotely American.
[ And how are these independent research labs going to respond to the deluge of information requests from consumers?]
By updating their webpages, and having access to an email server, and advanced AI programs, and a host of other things the FDA is far too stupid, fascist, outmoded, inept, and uncaring to do. Derp derp. You truly are dense.
[ I mean, what a great idea, to incentivize research labs to market and profit from the research reports they produce – that would be the very definition of a perverse incentive that would completely undermine the scientific process.]
Yeah, you clearly don't understand how private standards organizations work. They do teach classes on this. Where would we be without the department of electrical standards to regulate electrical devices?! Oh, wait, those are subjected to the far more rigorous standards of the UL, a private standards organization whose ratings are based on their reputation for accuracy. DONE.
[ You would have research labs acting with the same unscrupulous behaviour as the corporate conglomerates do now, pushing “cures” that are nothing more than glorified statistical errors.]
Clueless. And we get so much more accountability from the FDA that you cannot even withhold consent from, right? Yeah, maybe you don't know anything about economics or political science.
If you want to initiate violence, so even if the result was beneficial, which it's not, you'd have no case.
[ And on top of it all, this discussion is entirely irrelevant to the posted article which merely describes a theoretical pathway for cancer treatment for which no drug has even been sketched let alone developed.]
You made it irrelevant, with your authoritarian blather.
[ That’s the problem when you spend every day looking at reports of _potential_ _theoretical_ treatments. You start to think that cure-alls are being kept from the needy.]
Not "cure-alls" (ah, more loaded language you learned in your highschool "social studies" textbook). However, vital treatments and medicines are being kept from the needy, and prevented access to markets. If you don't already know a thousand examples, just look at the ones I've already linked to, and get a fraction of a clue.
[ But as Aubrey de Grey points out, cancer is many diseases and will probably be among the last of the health problems that humans solve because it is such a difficult problem.]
The FDA makes it so, by creating a barrier to entry to the market that serves all big Pharma, that can pay to defeat that barrier to entry to the market. Without that barrier, there would be millions of solutions, simultaneously tested, and pricing would prioritize them all, in a benevolent emergent order. Of course, your tiny brain doesn't comprehend emergence, so you think I (and every other innovator and patient) need to be enslaved. Here's just one example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LXH-TJYS5w -dca
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npgyZMaewuE -Simoncini, alkaline anti-fungal treatments
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanematsu_Sugiura
http://vimeo.com/25279346
--All the prior treatments may be ineffective. But the FDA says you're not allowed to study them and decide for yourself when to take them. And that's evil. It uses force to deny sick people the medicine they believe is most worth taking, and forces them to take medicines that are ineffective and cause painful, agonizing death.
For this reason alone, the FDA must be abolished if the USA is to have any claim of being a free country.
[ The larger issue is that our medical research apparatus is almost entirely market based – so dubious treatments that hint at just-outside-margin-of-error responses acquire huge development and marketing budgets while less exciting but generally more efficacious treatments – aspirin as a cancer fighter, health benefits of fasting, etc. get largely ignored because no one can make big easy profits off of them.]
And yet, this big benevolent government you keep referring to is the enforcment arm of these big evil corporations you keep referring to. Sounds to me like a problem of "regulatory capture" and extremely detrimental protectionism.
[ Yes the FDA is horribly flawed but it does serve an important regulatory purpose.]
No, it serves to murder innocent people. ...And you're a shill for it. How can you sleep at night, with such an evil, thuggish, death-dealing view?
Is someone paying you for your immoral opinions?[Dear Editor, can we please be spared the libertarian nonsense representing your personal views in these forums?]
Ah, you found out the editor was a libertarian, and have decided to try to shame her into shutting down the side of the debate that she likely sympathizes with. A very noble debate tactic!

[ It is not at all on point.]
It’s precisely on point, you weasel.

[ Yes, the FDA is a mess,]
You can stop there. Why is the FDA a mess? I thought we all needed to be “regulated” (prevented from buying the drugs and treatments we deem necessary to save our own lives). Oh, wait, the FDA’s advice is so good, it has to be enforced at the barrel of a gun. And all the people who die before a treatment is “approved” who would have been saved by it? They’re just expendable lives to you, the worshippers of slavery and false authority.

[ but proposing that consumer choice should be paramount ignores the reality that consumers have no capacity for comparing experimental drug regimens like they do for choosing among new cars or clothing.]
Yeah, because there’s no such thing as google. …Pure idiocy. The internet allows for infinitely better comparison of medical options than has ever existed at any prior time in history. Without the FDA millions of private standards operations would explode, offering even more information than is now offered, because they wouldn’t be shackled with the threat of violence for contradicting FDA misinformation.

[ And the potential negative outcomes – death, dysfunction – are far more severe than buying unfashionable clothing.]
That’s why we need death and dysfunction that’s FDA-approved. Like the bogus and anti-biology “Food Pyramid” taught in the government youth propaganda camps that has caused so much obesity and early death. …Which Kurzweil rightly skewers in “Fantastic Voyage.”

[ I have no problem with any person choosing to ingest any substance.]
Oh, great, then you support the abolition of the FDA. Glad we agree. Unless your statements are 100% self-contradictory.

[ It’s your life.]
Not according to the FDA.

[ But allowing a company to market and profit from a health-affecting product requires regulation.]
Wait, I thought you just said it was my life, and I was free to ingest what I decided was best for me. Now you’re directly contradicting yourself. Or did you think regulations weren’t enforced with firearms?

You worship force, and you hate individual choice. Just admit it, and stop hiding behind nicer-sounding suitcase words like “regulation.” What do you think happens when you don’t obey the regulations? Do you think they just shake their heads and say “We sure do wish they’d listen to us!” No. THEY RAID YOU, WITH GUNS DRAWN.http://youtu.be/nBiJB8YuDBQ?t=17m4s

…Just ask Roger Sless.

[ The FDA is a mess, but a market-regulated free-for-all would be an utter nightmare.]
No, your brain is a mess. A mess of self-contradicting pro-fascist blather. How about this, if you think freedom is a nightmare, why don’t you get yourself locked up in the prison you desire. …Just leave me out of it. Oh, that’s not what you want when you’re voting for the FDA? You want to compel these limits on my freedom, and what I can buy? How about if you go to hell, full of hot lead.

[ People have incredible motive to delude themselves when it comes to such products. And there are plenty of ruthless businesspeople willing to shuck snake oil to the credulous.]
Snake oil is healthier than subservience to fascism, you socialist worker bee.

[ ‘Consulting independent research labs’? Drug development is controlled largely by giant corporations.]
…whose enforcement arm is the FDA. Without the FDA we’d all be free to tell them to take a hike, and our insurance would be able to pay for natural alternatives and regenerative medicine that the slaves of the FDA currently are DISALLOWED BY COMPULSION. Your entire argument hinges on the fact that you refuse to admit that the FDA is compulsory, and that they use violence to enforce their edicts.

You are an authoritarian, which is opposite to any sort of individualism that could be called remotely American.

[ And how are these independent research labs going to respond to the deluge of information requests from consumers?]
By updating their webpages, and having access to an email server, and advanced AI programs, and a host of other things the FDA is far too stupid, fascist, outmoded, inept, and uncaring to do. Derp derp. You truly are dense.

[ I mean, what a great idea, to incentivize research labs to market and profit from the research reports they produce – that would be the very definition of a perverse incentive that would completely undermine the scientific process.]
Yeah, you clearly don’t understand how private standards organizations work. They do teach classes on this. Where would we be without the department of electrical standards to regulate electrical devices?! Oh, wait, those are subjected to the far more rigorous standards of the UL, a private standards organization whose ratings are based on their reputation for accuracy. DONE.

[ You would have research labs acting with the same unscrupulous behaviour as the corporate conglomerates do now, pushing “cures” that are nothing more than glorified statistical errors.]
Clueless. And we get so much more accountability from the FDA that you cannot even withhold consent from, right? Yeah, maybe you don’t know anything about economics or political science.

If you want to initiate violence, so even if the result was beneficial, which it’s not, you’d have no case.

[ And on top of it all, this discussion is entirely irrelevant to the posted article which merely describes a theoretical pathway for cancer treatment for which no drug has even been sketched let alone developed.]
You made it irrelevant, with your authoritarian blather.

[ That’s the problem when you spend every day looking at reports of _potential_ _theoretical_ treatments. You start to think that cure-alls are being kept from the needy.]
Not “cure-alls” (ah, more loaded language you learned in your highschool “social studies” textbook). However, vital treatments and medicines are being kept from the needy, and prevented access to markets. If you don’t already know a thousand examples, just look at the ones I’ve already linked to, and get a fraction of a clue.

[ But as Aubrey de Grey points out, cancer is many diseases and will probably be among the last of the health problems that humans solve because it is such a difficult problem.]
The FDA makes it so, by creating a barrier to entry to the market that serves all big Pharma, that can pay to defeat that barrier to entry to the market. Without that barrier, there would be millions of solutions, simultaneously tested, and pricing would prioritize them all, in a benevolent emergent order. Of course, your tiny brain doesn’t comprehend emergence, so you think I (and every other innovator and patient) need to be enslaved. Here’s just one example:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LXH-TJYS5w -dcahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npgyZMaewuE -Simoncini, alkaline anti-fungal treatmentshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kanematsu_Sugiurahttp://vimeo.com/25279346

–All the prior treatments may be ineffective. But the FDA says you’re not allowed to study them and decide for yourself when to take them. And that’s evil. It uses force to deny sick people the medicine they believe is most worth taking, and forces them to take medicines that are ineffective and cause painful, agonizing death.

For this reason alone, the FDA must be abolished if the USA is to have any claim of being a free country.

[ The larger issue is that our medical research apparatus is almost entirely market based – so dubious treatments that hint at just-outside-margin-of-error responses acquire huge development and marketing budgets while less exciting but generally more efficacious treatments – aspirin as a cancer fighter, health benefits of fasting, etc. get largely ignored because no one can make big easy profits off of them.]
And yet, this big benevolent government you keep referring to is the enforcment arm of these big evil corporations you keep referring to. Sounds to me like a problem of “regulatory capture” and extremely detrimental protectionism.

[ Yes the FDA is horribly flawed but it does serve an important regulatory purpose.]
No, it serves to murder innocent people. …And you’re a shill for it. How can you sleep at night, with such an evil, thuggish, death-dealing view?

Is someone paying you for your immoral opinions?

]]>By: Jake_Witmerhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-174251
Jake_WitmerTue, 16 Jul 2013 18:51:42 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-174251Don't you know that if the government didn't hand out bread at breadlines, we'd all starve?! Do you want the crying children to starve?! ...You're mad!
(Try explaining a supermarket to someone who "thinks" like this. You'll get nowhere. You and the pig both get muddy, but only the pig enjoys it.)Don’t you know that if the government didn’t hand out bread at breadlines, we’d all starve?! Do you want the crying children to starve?! …You’re mad!
(Try explaining a supermarket to someone who “thinks” like this. You’ll get nowhere. You and the pig both get muddy, but only the pig enjoys it.)
]]>By: Jake_Witmerhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-174249
Jake_WitmerTue, 16 Jul 2013 18:48:53 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-174249[As a former Libertarian I just cant help myself from adding the following observations.]
So, you're a "former Libertarian" --a former member of the Libertarian Party? If not, why capitalize it? Cluelessness? It sounds like you're trying to make a case against libertarian ideas here.
[If the market can do better than the FDA why doesn’t it?]
The FDA and a free market are mutually-exclusive. That we have to get "approval" to use drugs, or offer medical services from the FDA means that we are not free to do these things, without fear of being assaulted by armed government thugs and local police commandeered by them. This is the nature of unfreedom: it threatens individual freedom, into prior restraint.
[ Where are all the competing independent testing labs for vitamins and supplements?]
The FDA has made it clear that they will raid such labs with armed force, and most Americans are too cowardly to retaliate against the FDA and reduce it to smoldering rubble, as they once reduced Berlin to smoldering rubble. In both cases, one group of people wished to tell others how they could live their lives, and that they, the omnipotent state, were the true owners of all property. When it was foreign Germans, Americans didn't tolerate it, but they do tolerate that kind of behavior from the power-seeking sociopaths of their own government, because they lack philosophical education.
Your initial claim to be a "former libertarian" isn't credible, unless you were only claiming to be the kind of unphilosophical, "skin deep" superficially dabbling in philosophical thought.
[ Where were they for all drugs before the FDA was created?]
The USA led scientific discovery, research, and development before the FDA was created. However, there was not yet computation-driven research, and research overall was at a more primitive state, simply because we had only recently abolished slavery. Nonetheless, the rate of technological advancement was skyrocketing before the AMA and FDA were created in 1910, as a means of protecting the giant chemical cartels. You can read all about it if you're really interested in the history.
[ Who is going to fund all this incredibly expensive free market testing?]
You lack all comprehension of the way free(r) markets work. David Koch survived prostate cancer. From wikipedia: "Between 1998 and 2012, Koch contributed at least $395 million to medical research causes and institutions."
But the best thing about the free market is that there is a huge profit margin for bringing drugs to market, if the FDA thugs will get out of the way. There is a giant flood of medical treatments that can't be pursued right now, because of the FDA's prohibitions. That's what the FDA does, it prohibits medical treatments. If it was purely advisory, and could therefore be ignored, it wouldn't be the mass murderer it is.
But, don't take my word for it. This is from 2011:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kC1MivfpT9o
[ Will it be the drug manufacturers in the way financial companies paid the rating companies to rate their derivative products?]
Small-L libertarians don't agree with government-monopoly-enforced central banking, fiat currency, or monopoly coercive fractional reserve banking. I hope this clears up the libertarian position on fiat currency manipulation. For more info on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_von_NotHaus
Without a free market in money, "open competition in currency," there is nothing remotely resembling a "free market." This is because everyone is perversely-incentivized against saving money, and perversely-incentivized to spend it before it returns to its intrinsic value. (And because the government always inflates, due to perverse political pressures inherent in power-seeking sociopaths and the total lack of accountability of fiat systems.)
[ Or the way companies paid Arthur Anderson to audit them?]
See prior. Actual libertarians don't advocate for a mixed economy.
[ And if you think for-profit pharma is driven by ” incentives to produce fast and accurate results” I urge you to read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/]
Andrew Weil pointed out a long time ago in "Health and Healing" that all kinds of medical studies were fraudulent --with the full blessing of the FDA, which has been tamed by the corporate sociopaths. Private standards organizations are far harder to buy off than government boards, as proven by Donald Rumsfeld's purchase of the FDA advisory board that outlawed using stevia as a food additive. (Four members of the board retired to high-paying desk-jobs at Searle & Associates after their corrupted vote.)
Still worse, the FDA eliminates the possibility of independent standards associations for drugs, because they
1) write the law as they see fit, and courts enforce it, even though it violates the common law (they get away with this because the Jury-based system has been severely degraded). See the famous trial of vitamin importer, Roger Sless for more on this.
2) The existence of the FDA means that anyone who reveals a conflicting standard is targeted for armed raids by FDA-thugs. Not many people willing to risk that!
3) The sheeplike public, then thinks the FDA is "keeping them safe," because the FDA would never let them come to harm.
[One of the many things Libertarians refuse to get is the concept of relative power between players in a marketplace]
I just described how this concept works in reality. In reality, the FDA is a "coercive standards organization that you cannot opt out of." Since you have to pay for it anyway, and since it can use violence against you, you can either accept their standards or fight a tax-financed organization with unlimited money. Most people sheepishly and cowardly choose the former. I describe this concept to you, it supports my argument, and then you just mindlessly assert that libertarians don't understand market relationships.
You sound like a first-year poli-sci major, part of a growing "clergy of oppression."
[ and that as a result, entities like independent testing labs would be much more likely to be victims of complete special interest capture,]
Because the FDA isn't capable of "special interest capture." Nooo! Oh, wait, it didn't need to be "captured," it was literally designed as a corporate enforcement arm from the beginning. ...Except that, unlike a corporation, it is tax-financed, and you cannot opt out.
[ than a federal agency.]
Yeah. Um, you don't actually know anything. And, somehow, you think that people who are paid to be prohibitionists are going to somehow act in a benevolent and non-obstructionist manner. Right. You're on mars, and in no way connected to observations about the way the FDA actually works, here on Earth.
[ The incentives for big Pharma to sue or own those labs would be overwhelming.]
Oh, you mean in the same way they own the FDA? The same way the AMA is a pill-pushing protectionism operation, replete with "hazing" AKA "residency" ? Laughable.
[ The amount of statistical juking that would go on, would make what they already do look like child’s play. I say lets try very, very hard to reform an d improve the FDA.]
You'd have a better chance of reforming the Nazis' Hartheim mental hospital, for all the same reasons.
The FDA isn't an organization that wants to save lives. It's an enforcement arm of fascism, used to steal from innocent people, and narrow their alternatives to ones that make their political friends "pill pushing" money.[As a former Libertarian I just cant help myself from adding the following observations.]
So, you’re a “former Libertarian” –a former member of the Libertarian Party? If not, why capitalize it? Cluelessness? It sounds like you’re trying to make a case against libertarian ideas here.

[If the market can do better than the FDA why doesn’t it?]
The FDA and a free market are mutually-exclusive. That we have to get “approval” to use drugs, or offer medical services from the FDA means that we are not free to do these things, without fear of being assaulted by armed government thugs and local police commandeered by them. This is the nature of unfreedom: it threatens individual freedom, into prior restraint.

[ Where are all the competing independent testing labs for vitamins and supplements?]
The FDA has made it clear that they will raid such labs with armed force, and most Americans are too cowardly to retaliate against the FDA and reduce it to smoldering rubble, as they once reduced Berlin to smoldering rubble. In both cases, one group of people wished to tell others how they could live their lives, and that they, the omnipotent state, were the true owners of all property. When it was foreign Germans, Americans didn’t tolerate it, but they do tolerate that kind of behavior from the power-seeking sociopaths of their own government, because they lack philosophical education.

Your initial claim to be a “former libertarian” isn’t credible, unless you were only claiming to be the kind of unphilosophical, “skin deep” superficially dabbling in philosophical thought.

[ Where were they for all drugs before the FDA was created?]
The USA led scientific discovery, research, and development before the FDA was created. However, there was not yet computation-driven research, and research overall was at a more primitive state, simply because we had only recently abolished slavery. Nonetheless, the rate of technological advancement was skyrocketing before the AMA and FDA were created in 1910, as a means of protecting the giant chemical cartels. You can read all about it if you’re really interested in the history.

[ Who is going to fund all this incredibly expensive free market testing?]
You lack all comprehension of the way free(r) markets work. David Koch survived prostate cancer. From wikipedia: “Between 1998 and 2012, Koch contributed at least $395 million to medical research causes and institutions.”

But the best thing about the free market is that there is a huge profit margin for bringing drugs to market, if the FDA thugs will get out of the way. There is a giant flood of medical treatments that can’t be pursued right now, because of the FDA’s prohibitions. That’s what the FDA does, it prohibits medical treatments. If it was purely advisory, and could therefore be ignored, it wouldn’t be the mass murderer it is.

[ Will it be the drug manufacturers in the way financial companies paid the rating companies to rate their derivative products?]
Small-L libertarians don’t agree with government-monopoly-enforced central banking, fiat currency, or monopoly coercive fractional reserve banking. I hope this clears up the libertarian position on fiat currency manipulation. For more info on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_von_NotHaus

Without a free market in money, “open competition in currency,” there is nothing remotely resembling a “free market.” This is because everyone is perversely-incentivized against saving money, and perversely-incentivized to spend it before it returns to its intrinsic value. (And because the government always inflates, due to perverse political pressures inherent in power-seeking sociopaths and the total lack of accountability of fiat systems.)

[ Or the way companies paid Arthur Anderson to audit them?]
See prior. Actual libertarians don’t advocate for a mixed economy.

Andrew Weil pointed out a long time ago in "Health and Healing" that all kinds of medical studies were fraudulent --with the full blessing of the FDA, which has been tamed by the corporate sociopaths. Private standards organizations are far harder to buy off than government boards, as proven by Donald Rumsfeld's purchase of the FDA advisory board that outlawed using stevia as a food additive. (Four members of the board retired to high-paying desk-jobs at Searle & Associates after their corrupted vote.)

Still worse, the FDA eliminates the possibility of independent standards associations for drugs, because they
1) write the law as they see fit, and courts enforce it, even though it violates the common law (they get away with this because the Jury-based system has been severely degraded). See the famous trial of vitamin importer, Roger Sless for more on this.
2) The existence of the FDA means that anyone who reveals a conflicting standard is targeted for armed raids by FDA-thugs. Not many people willing to risk that!
3) The sheeplike public, then thinks the FDA is "keeping them safe," because the FDA would never let them come to harm.

[One of the many things Libertarians refuse to get is the concept of relative power between players in a marketplace]
I just described how this concept works in reality. In reality, the FDA is a “coercive standards organization that you cannot opt out of.” Since you have to pay for it anyway, and since it can use violence against you, you can either accept their standards or fight a tax-financed organization with unlimited money. Most people sheepishly and cowardly choose the former. I describe this concept to you, it supports my argument, and then you just mindlessly assert that libertarians don’t understand market relationships.

You sound like a first-year poli-sci major, part of a growing “clergy of oppression.”

[ and that as a result, entities like independent testing labs would be much more likely to be victims of complete special interest capture,]
Because the FDA isn’t capable of “special interest capture.” Nooo! Oh, wait, it didn’t need to be “captured,” it was literally designed as a corporate enforcement arm from the beginning. …Except that, unlike a corporation, it is tax-financed, and you cannot opt out.

[ than a federal agency.]
Yeah. Um, you don’t actually know anything. And, somehow, you think that people who are paid to be prohibitionists are going to somehow act in a benevolent and non-obstructionist manner. Right. You’re on mars, and in no way connected to observations about the way the FDA actually works, here on Earth.

[ The incentives for big Pharma to sue or own those labs would be overwhelming.]
Oh, you mean in the same way they own the FDA? The same way the AMA is a pill-pushing protectionism operation, replete with “hazing” AKA “residency” ? Laughable.

[ The amount of statistical juking that would go on, would make what they already do look like child’s play. I say lets try very, very hard to reform an d improve the FDA.]
You’d have a better chance of reforming the Nazis’ Hartheim mental hospital, for all the same reasons.

The FDA isn’t an organization that wants to save lives. It’s an enforcement arm of fascism, used to steal from innocent people, and narrow their alternatives to ones that make their political friends “pill pushing” money.

]]>By: Giulio Priscohttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173967
Giulio PriscoTue, 16 Jul 2013 08:25:18 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173967re "consumers have no capacity for comparing experimental drug regimens like they do for choosing among new cars or clothing"
Here we go, the typical elitist view of nanny-stater control freaks. We are too stupid to choose for ourselves, right? You guys know better, right?
I always had a thing against authoritarianism, but even more so when it hides behind "liberal" paternalism.re “consumers have no capacity for comparing experimental drug regimens like they do for choosing among new cars or clothing”

Here we go, the typical elitist view of nanny-stater control freaks. We are too stupid to choose for ourselves, right? You guys know better, right?

I always had a thing against authoritarianism, but even more so when it hides behind “liberal” paternalism.

]]>By: Renzo Caneparihttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173835
Renzo CanepariMon, 15 Jul 2013 22:48:45 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173835Fifty five years ago, a substance called thalidomide was approved by the FDA to help pregnant women cope with morning sickness. When these women gave birth, the babies were terribly deformed. The FDA got "spoofed" after that, and in my opinion, overly cautious. Also, it seems that once something is found wrong, the FDA takes forever to ban what needs banning.
I would like to see an international FDA. By the way, a few years ago, I read that thalidomide is excellent in reducing high blood pressure in non pregnant women and men who are allergic to all other blood pressure reducers.Fifty five years ago, a substance called thalidomide was approved by the FDA to help pregnant women cope with morning sickness. When these women gave birth, the babies were terribly deformed. The FDA got “spoofed” after that, and in my opinion, overly cautious. Also, it seems that once something is found wrong, the FDA takes forever to ban what needs banning.
I would like to see an international FDA. By the way, a few years ago, I read that thalidomide is excellent in reducing high blood pressure in non pregnant women and men who are allergic to all other blood pressure reducers.
]]>By: Chrispiumhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173834
ChrispiumMon, 15 Jul 2013 22:47:29 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173834Yes, choose carefully among all the "lies for profit", there will be no one to stop those liars. Every day they will hide behind new identities, varying their lies a little bit.
But you'll be free right?
.Yes, choose carefully among all the “lies for profit”, there will be no one to stop those liars. Every day they will hide behind new identities, varying their lies a little bit.

But you’ll be free right?

.

]]>By: klaatuhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173805
klaatuMon, 15 Jul 2013 20:40:34 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173805The part about Rand Paul - totally facetious
as indicated,*-) I am not a fan of Paul.
Should have substituted Shirley instead of
surly but meant surely. OK Bob?The part about Rand Paul – totally facetious
as indicated,*-) I am not a fan of Paul.
Should have substituted Shirley instead of
surly but meant surely. OK Bob?
]]>By: RHChttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173803
RHCMon, 15 Jul 2013 20:29:46 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173803As a former Libertarian I just cant help myself from adding the following observations.
If the market can do better than the FDA why doesn't it? Where are all the competing independent testing labs for vitamins and supplements? Where were they for all drugs before the FDA was created? Who is going to fund all this incredibly expensive free market testing? Will it be the drug manufacturers in the way financial companies paid the rating companies to rate their derivative products? Or the way companies paid Arthur Anderson to audit them? And if you think for-profit pharma is driven by " incentives to produce fast and accurate results" I urge you to read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/
One of the many things Libertarians refuse to get is the concept of relative power between players in a marketplace and that as a result, entities like independent testing labs would be much more likely to be victims of complete special interest capture, than a federal agency. The incentives for big Pharma to sue or own those labs would be overwhelming. The amount of statistical juking that would go on, would make what they already do look like child's play. I say lets try very, very hard to reform an d improve the FDA.As a former Libertarian I just cant help myself from adding the following observations.

If the market can do better than the FDA why doesn’t it? Where are all the competing independent testing labs for vitamins and supplements? Where were they for all drugs before the FDA was created? Who is going to fund all this incredibly expensive free market testing? Will it be the drug manufacturers in the way financial companies paid the rating companies to rate their derivative products? Or the way companies paid Arthur Anderson to audit them? And if you think for-profit pharma is driven by ” incentives to produce fast and accurate results” I urge you to read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/

One of the many things Libertarians refuse to get is the concept of relative power between players in a marketplace and that as a result, entities like independent testing labs would be much more likely to be victims of complete special interest capture, than a federal agency. The incentives for big Pharma to sue or own those labs would be overwhelming. The amount of statistical juking that would go on, would make what they already do look like child’s play. I say lets try very, very hard to reform an d improve the FDA.

]]>By: Bob Vasquezhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173802
Bob VasquezMon, 15 Jul 2013 20:22:40 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173802Klaatu, who do you include when you say "us" or, better yet, do you exclude anyone from your use of the word "us"?Klaatu, who do you include when you say “us” or, better yet, do you exclude anyone from your use of the word “us”?
]]>By: Denis Tarasovhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173797
Denis TarasovMon, 15 Jul 2013 19:50:59 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173797There is some point here. Living in Russia, where requirements for approving a drug are much less strict, we have hundreds of approved medications, without any good evidence for their good effects and without good guaranties of safety. And doctors do prescribe these things daily. On the other hand, in cases where no other good treatment exists, they offer at least a possibility. I think there should be some good way of balancing benefits and risksThere is some point here. Living in Russia, where requirements for approving a drug are much less strict, we have hundreds of approved medications, without any good evidence for their good effects and without good guaranties of safety. And doctors do prescribe these things daily. On the other hand, in cases where no other good treatment exists, they offer at least a possibility. I think there should be some good way of balancing benefits and risks
]]>By: Chrispiumhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173795
ChrispiumMon, 15 Jul 2013 19:43:07 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173795Madness to opt out. Opt out to what? The liberchalatans dreammarket? Without government there is anarchy and you will be ruled by the strong warlord/sociopath.
If you dislike government so much then go live in Somalia. That's what a country without effective government looks like.
.Madness to opt out. Opt out to what? The liberchalatans dreammarket? Without government there is anarchy and you will be ruled by the strong warlord/sociopath.

If you dislike government so much then go live in Somalia. That’s what a country without effective government looks like.

Rand Paul will surly start us
ON THE ROAD TO FREEDOM
not surfdumb or even serfdom.*-)

TO PARAPHRASE OUR FOX “NEWS” EDITOR:
*Let’s get rid of this “nanny state” mentality
including Obamacare. “We” would automatically
reject such malignancies like Enron and eject
“those few bad apples” from our free Mkt
Libertarian consciousness.*

]]>By: klaatuhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173768
klaatuMon, 15 Jul 2013 17:23:34 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173768Tom:
Good thinking. Look at the "let's get rid of the FDA"
comments. The T-party RAY-publican mantra,
"gumment doesn't work, elect us and we'll prove it".
Yup, the singularity will surely be a libertarian
heaven. We can upload the Roland Arnall
Ameriquest unfettered deregulated "free market" un-
consciousness. "But it was only the distortion of
government interference..." and blah blah blahTom:
Good thinking. Look at the “let’s get rid of the FDA”
comments. The T-party RAY-publican mantra,
“gumment doesn’t work, elect us and we’ll prove it”.

Yup, the singularity will surely be a libertarian
heaven. We can upload the Roland Arnall
Ameriquest unfettered deregulated “free market” un-
consciousness. “But it was only the distortion of
government interference…” and blah blah blah

]]>By: Chrishttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173760
ChrisMon, 15 Jul 2013 17:05:56 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173760Dear Editor, can we please be spared the libertarian nonsense representing your personal views in these forums? It is not at all on point. Yes, the FDA is a mess, but proposing that consumer choice should be paramount ignores the reality that consumers have no capacity for comparing experimental drug regimens like they do for choosing among new cars or clothing. And the potential negative outcomes - death, dysfunction - are far more severe than buying unfashionable clothing. I have no problem with any person choosing to ingest any substance. It's your life. But allowing a company to market and profit from a health-affecting product requires regulation. The FDA is a mess, but a market-regulated free-for-all would be an utter nightmare. People have incredible motive to delude themselves when it comes to such products. And there are plenty of ruthless businesspeople willing to shuck snake oil to the credulous. 'Consulting independent research labs'? Drug development is controlled largely by giant corporations. And how are these independent research labs going to respond to the deluge of information requests from consumers? I mean, what a great idea, to incentivize research labs to market and profit from the research reports they produce - that would be the very definition of a perverse incentive that would completely undermine the scientific process. You would have research labs acting with the same unscrupulous behaviour as the corporate conglomerates do now, pushing "cures" that are nothing more than glorified statistical errors. And on top of it all, this discussion is entirely irrelevant to the posted article which merely describes a theoretical pathway for cancer treatment for which no drug has even been sketched let alone developed. That's the problem when you spend every day looking at reports of _potential_ _theoretical_ treatments. You start to think that cure-alls are being kept from the needy. But as Aubrey de Grey points out, cancer is many diseases and will probably be among the last of the health problems that humans solve because it is such a difficult problem. The larger issue is that our medical research apparatus is almost entirely market based - so dubious treatments that hint at just-outside-margin-of-error responses acquire huge development and marketing budgets while less exciting but generally more efficacious treatments - aspirin as a cancer fighter, health benefits of fasting, etc. get largely ignored because no one can make big easy profits off of them. Yes the FDA is horribly flawed but it does serve an important regulatory purpose.Dear Editor, can we please be spared the libertarian nonsense representing your personal views in these forums? It is not at all on point. Yes, the FDA is a mess, but proposing that consumer choice should be paramount ignores the reality that consumers have no capacity for comparing experimental drug regimens like they do for choosing among new cars or clothing. And the potential negative outcomes – death, dysfunction – are far more severe than buying unfashionable clothing. I have no problem with any person choosing to ingest any substance. It’s your life. But allowing a company to market and profit from a health-affecting product requires regulation. The FDA is a mess, but a market-regulated free-for-all would be an utter nightmare. People have incredible motive to delude themselves when it comes to such products. And there are plenty of ruthless businesspeople willing to shuck snake oil to the credulous. ‘Consulting independent research labs’? Drug development is controlled largely by giant corporations. And how are these independent research labs going to respond to the deluge of information requests from consumers? I mean, what a great idea, to incentivize research labs to market and profit from the research reports they produce – that would be the very definition of a perverse incentive that would completely undermine the scientific process. You would have research labs acting with the same unscrupulous behaviour as the corporate conglomerates do now, pushing “cures” that are nothing more than glorified statistical errors. And on top of it all, this discussion is entirely irrelevant to the posted article which merely describes a theoretical pathway for cancer treatment for which no drug has even been sketched let alone developed. That’s the problem when you spend every day looking at reports of _potential_ _theoretical_ treatments. You start to think that cure-alls are being kept from the needy. But as Aubrey de Grey points out, cancer is many diseases and will probably be among the last of the health problems that humans solve because it is such a difficult problem. The larger issue is that our medical research apparatus is almost entirely market based – so dubious treatments that hint at just-outside-margin-of-error responses acquire huge development and marketing budgets while less exciting but generally more efficacious treatments – aspirin as a cancer fighter, health benefits of fasting, etc. get largely ignored because no one can make big easy profits off of them. Yes the FDA is horribly flawed but it does serve an important regulatory purpose.
]]>By: Eric Andersonhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173755
Eric AndersonMon, 15 Jul 2013 16:52:25 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173755I would think a screen of FDA approved drugs might demonstrate some or a class of drugs. For example: Lower insulin levels are associated with fewer cancers. Maybe lower insulin down regulate or block the path way. Maybe a drug like glucophage that lowers insulin will or will not work but may be modified or hint at the pathway to reduce the chemical in tumors. Since glucophae has been associated with lower ates but not effective after the cancer is developed what does this tell us about the pathways and feedback systems? Eric
Just use BRUTE force screening!I would think a screen of FDA approved drugs might demonstrate some or a class of drugs. For example: Lower insulin levels are associated with fewer cancers. Maybe lower insulin down regulate or block the path way. Maybe a drug like glucophage that lowers insulin will or will not work but may be modified or hint at the pathway to reduce the chemical in tumors. Since glucophae has been associated with lower ates but not effective after the cancer is developed what does this tell us about the pathways and feedback systems? Eric
Just use BRUTE force screening!
]]>By: ionhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173746
ionMon, 15 Jul 2013 16:22:50 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173746sure there are enough charlatans, they're called pharmaceutical companiessure there are enough charlatans, they’re called pharmaceutical companies
]]>By: r. muirhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173743
r. muirMon, 15 Jul 2013 15:54:59 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173743My guess is that Jake may have more than an academic interest in a cure for cancer, a disease that responds poorly to patience as a remedy.My guess is that Jake may have more than an academic interest in a cure for cancer, a disease that responds poorly to patience as a remedy.
]]>By: Giulio Priscohttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173735
Giulio PriscoMon, 15 Jul 2013 15:26:00 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173735@Tom - I want to choose for myself. Probably many options are ineffective, but so what? That just means that I have to choose carefully, and it is _my_ life and health anyway. I agree with Jake and Amara.@Tom – I want to choose for myself. Probably many options are ineffective, but so what? That just means that I have to choose carefully, and it is _my_ life and health anyway. I agree with Jake and Amara.
]]>By: Victor Vurpillathttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173728
Victor VurpillatMon, 15 Jul 2013 14:49:08 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173728The Life Extension Foundation is promoting changes in the FDA regulations by allowing individuals to "opt out" of FDA regulationsThe Life Extension Foundation is promoting changes in the FDA regulations by allowing individuals to “opt out” of FDA regulations
]]>By: Editorhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173718
EditorMon, 15 Jul 2013 14:16:25 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173718Tom, the deeper issue here is: what are the effects of a nanny government on people? One effect, like government education, is to infantilize the population. So instead of consulting independent competing research labs, we look to a know-it-all central authority for our reality, one that is easily controlled by special interests and that has no incentives to produce fast and accurate results. Without an FDA, independent labs would have an incentive to compete in an open market for their studies and reports.Tom, the deeper issue here is: what are the effects of a nanny government on people? One effect, like government education, is to infantilize the population. So instead of consulting independent competing research labs, we look to a know-it-all central authority for our reality, one that is easily controlled by special interests and that has no incentives to produce fast and accurate results. Without an FDA, independent labs would have an incentive to compete in an open market for their studies and reports.
]]>By: Tom Moriartyhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173713
Tom MoriartyMon, 15 Jul 2013 13:53:15 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173713Jake:
You should think this through a bit more. There are already enough charlatans pitching ineffective cures for the ills of mankind. Do you really want a flood of Magic Potion Number 9 cures.Jake:

You should think this through a bit more. There are already enough charlatans pitching ineffective cures for the ills of mankind. Do you really want a flood of Magic Potion Number 9 cures.

]]>By: Editorhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173707
EditorMon, 15 Jul 2013 13:14:22 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173707Thank you. I've sent a query to the University of Southampton.Thank you. I’ve sent a query to the University of Southampton.
]]>By: Jake_Witmerhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173706
Jake_WitmerMon, 15 Jul 2013 13:11:00 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173706It turns out there are hundreds of viable cancer cures, and all articles end with "could be used in the future" after "years of unnecessary government-approved tests." How about we take a wrecking ball to the FDA, and stop acting like submissive little slaves, and begin testing whatever we want, right now?It turns out there are hundreds of viable cancer cures, and all articles end with “could be used in the future” after “years of unnecessary government-approved tests.” How about we take a wrecking ball to the FDA, and stop acting like submissive little slaves, and begin testing whatever we want, right now?
]]>By: 5566hhhttp://www.kurzweilai.net/how-to-kill-cancer-cells-but-by-starving-them/comment-page-1#comment-173692
5566hhMon, 15 Jul 2013 12:07:36 +0000http://www.kurzweilai.net/?p=200152#comment-173692Should the University of Southampton really be given most credit here? The article in Cell is co-authored by researchers in, among others, the Universities of British Columbia, Toronto, Heidelberg, Manchester, Cambridge, Iowa, also McGill etc. as well as Southampton.Should the University of Southampton really be given most credit here? The article in Cell is co-authored by researchers in, among others, the Universities of British Columbia, Toronto, Heidelberg, Manchester, Cambridge, Iowa, also McGill etc. as well as Southampton.
]]>